I don’t think the two are comparable. They both use different skills and require different kind of endurance. In football there are breaks inbetween plays and in rugby there is constant movement. Also, in football each position is about as different as a prop is from a scrum half.
Personally, after playing both, I think football is physically more difficult and requires more skill, but rugby is more exhausting and I consider it more fun.
so rugby gets the more watchable and fun to play vote?
They’re completely different sports. NFL atheletes train to give 100% in short bursts, Rugby players train to reserve themselves to last an entire match.
A rugby player will never match the explosive power of a football player, just as a football player will probably never match the aerobic endurance of a rugby player.
And football is more fun to watch, for me at least. The stop and go builds a lot of tension that the “just run forward” action of rugby doesn’t satisfy in me. Though I havn’t watched THAT much rugby, only a few matches.
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
so rugby gets the more watchable and fun to play vote? [/quote]
Not sure I understand exactly what you intended to say, but here’s something to keep in mind: The extreme majority of US citizens have never played rugby. Most have had a VERY limited exposure to it, since it gets zero television exposure. Therefore, the avg American doesn’t know the rules, doesn’t know what to watch for, and doesn’t know what to make of line-outs, scrums, rucks, etc. When you’re unfamiliar with the rules, and when you’re watching a match anywhere below, say the D1 or Super League level, it just looks like a big clusterfuck void of any real organization.
The same people in the US who would list rugby as an enjoyable sport to watch are (in large part) the same ones who PLAY rugby – because we’re the only ones over here who understand the game at a level high enough to actually understand and enjoy it.
Oh, and yes, that is Shane in my avatar.
I remember asking the running back on my highschool football team team who was also a rugby star which sport was more painful and tough…his ansewer was football
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
so rugby gets the more watchable and fun to play vote? [/quote]
Not a chance.
Football is the most watchable, is that really a legit question?
Football makes 8 Billion a year in money and you want to compare it to rugby. If rugby was more physical would not more rugby players be in the NFL.
Rugby is a pansy game…
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Rugby is a pansy game…[/quote]
have u played or even watched a decent level of rugby before?
Yes and football is by far more physical and brutal… football is tougher, harder and has the best Athletes in the world. Rugby to me to is like a soccer match, but no red cards allowed.
Football is the most watched as well…Super bowl. Come on buddy…are you serious
depends what you mean but most watched… most watched throughout the session and match to match or one off event?
on both accounts you are wrong, olympics, soccer, US masters, many boxing (main events), Rugby World Cup and then its a toss up between Cricket Ashes and the NFL Superbowl on the one off big events. Only the americans take this game serriously, all of europe and the whole southern hemisphere play rugby. think that might also say something
also… by your posts it obvious you have neither watched or played rugby at any sort of high level… watch this and then try to come back and tell me its just a soccer match. also red cards are uded all the time a long with yellow ones.
how do you base the “best” athletes in the world tag?
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
so rugby gets the more watchable and fun to play vote? [/quote]
Harder hitting: American football
More fun to watch: American football when I care about the teams, Rugby when I don’t
More non-stop action: Rugby
More extreme athletes: American football
More well rounded athletes: Rugby
More fun to play: Rugby
[quote]jre67t wrote:
Football is the most watchable, is that really a legit question?
Football makes 8 Billion a year in money and you want to compare it to rugby. If rugby was more physical would not more rugby players be in the NFL.
Rugby is a pansy game…[/quote]
You are a simpleton.
How many fights (and I don’t mean pushing and/or shoving) off the ball do you see in football?
This is commonplace in rugby
Matt Banahan is playing for the England ‘A’ side this summer, on the wing - he is 6’6". I have no didea what he weighs (and maybe he could hit harder), but this sort of thing happens week in week out.
Our last game of the season was abandonned for a 44-man brawl.
I’ve played both games and I know which one I think is tougher.
It’s a good job were not talking about Rugby League instead of Rugby union, 'cos League is an even harder game based on contact and the ability to inflict injury.
It’s all a matter of opinion I love football and havent played rugby. Not saying I wouldn’t but I love the way football is. It’s more of a chess match then an armwrestling competition(rugby) Football you need to out smart your oponent not just push them harder…
It’s plain and simple; if international rugby players could play in the NFL, they would. Not all of them, but you would be seeing significant amounts of them transitioning to the NFL. Why? More money.
I love volleyball. I play in college and aspire to play at some professional level some day. But you better be damn sure if the NBA called me up and offered me a contract I’d accept in a second because the amount of money, fame, importance of the sport, is so much bigger.
The best Rugby Super League seems to pack 15-18 thousand fans in for games. The best college football teams in America pack 100,000+ fans in the stadium.
The best Super League players seem to make about a million a year with the stars making more. The best players in the NFL can 10 million or more per year.
As far as the best athletes go, it is obviously dependent on your definition. In terms of size, strength and explosive power, no team sport can touch American football, simply by the nature of the game. Since the plays are short bursts followed by a recovery period, it allows the players to be bigger/stronger/faster without having the demands of running up and down the field all game with no breaks.
As far as watchability goes, that’s completely subjective. Obviously in America it is no contest but internationally Rugby is more popular.
There is no “better sport.” However, it’s safe to say that if Rugby players were able to make it in the NFL you’d be seeing a lot more of them lining up on Sundays.
very well put trinsey
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
It’s plain and simple; if international rugby players could play in the NFL, they would. Not all of them, but you would be seeing significant amounts of them transitioning to the NFL. Why? More money.
I love volleyball. I play in college and aspire to play at some professional level some day. But you better be damn sure if the NBA called me up and offered me a contract I’d accept in a second because the amount of money, fame, importance of the sport, is so much bigger.
The best Rugby Super League seems to pack 15-18 thousand fans in for games. The best college football teams in America pack 100,000+ fans in the stadium.
The best Super League players seem to make about a million a year with the stars making more. The best players in the NFL can 10 million or more per year.
As far as the best athletes go, it is obviously dependent on your definition. In terms of size, strength and explosive power, no team sport can touch American football, simply by the nature of the game. Since the plays are short bursts followed by a recovery period, it allows the players to be bigger/stronger/faster without having the demands of running up and down the field all game with no breaks.
As far as watchability goes, that’s completely subjective. Obviously in America it is no contest but internationally Rugby is more popular.
There is no “better sport.” However, it’s safe to say that if Rugby players were able to make it in the NFL you’d be seeing a lot more of them lining up on Sundays.[/quote]
but the fact the rugby players hae been training their whole life for one game. means it would be difficult to just switch. but i do think it would be easier for a rugby star to switch ti nfl than an nfl star to switch rugby…
also your arguement about attendance is subjective too. as america has a population many times greater than uk, then of course it is going to have bigger attendance’s.
Scott
Bigger attendance means more viewers. Means NFL is more watchable.
NFL - 1
Rugby- 0
Scoreboard NFL
rugby has higher tv viewing figures… more players world wide.
NFL - 0
Rugby - 2
[quote]thosebananas wrote:
jtrinsey wrote:
It’s plain and simple; if international rugby players could play in the NFL, they would. Not all of them, but you would be seeing significant amounts of them transitioning to the NFL. Why? More money.
I love volleyball. I play in college and aspire to play at some professional level some day. But you better be damn sure if the NBA called me up and offered me a contract I’d accept in a second because the amount of money, fame, importance of the sport, is so much bigger.
The best Rugby Super League seems to pack 15-18 thousand fans in for games. The best college football teams in America pack 100,000+ fans in the stadium.
The best Super League players seem to make about a million a year with the stars making more. The best players in the NFL can 10 million or more per year.
As far as the best athletes go, it is obviously dependent on your definition. In terms of size, strength and explosive power, no team sport can touch American football, simply by the nature of the game. Since the plays are short bursts followed by a recovery period, it allows the players to be bigger/stronger/faster without having the demands of running up and down the field all game with no breaks.
As far as watchability goes, that’s completely subjective. Obviously in America it is no contest but internationally Rugby is more popular.
There is no “better sport.” However, it’s safe to say that if Rugby players were able to make it in the NFL you’d be seeing a lot more of them lining up on Sundays.
but the fact the rugby players hae been training their whole life for one game. means it would be difficult to just switch. but i do think it would be easier for a rugby star to switch ti nfl than an nfl star to switch rugby…
also your arguement about attendance is subjective too. as america has a population many times greater than uk, then of course it is going to have bigger attendance’s.
Scott
[/quote]
Did you see my earlier post regarding Dan Lyle? He was a good football player his whole life – good enough that NFL teams were interested in him for awhile, but not good enough to get drafted or to be offered a contract. He didn’t even START playing rugby until 1993, he was 24. Three years later, in 1997, he was named the English Premiership’s newcomer of the year and one of five finalists for player of the year. In 1999, the London Sunday Times named him to its World 15 International All-Star Team. He’d been playing for 5 YEARS – and nothing but football before that!
In his own words…“They all say overseas that whenever we (U.S.) take this game seriously, we’ll beat everyone, and it’s true,” says Lyle. “If I could get some All-Pros and train them in rugby, we’d go out and kick ass. Hell, I’ll take all those guys who were second-team All-SEC but didn’t make the NFL”
Remember, he’s talking about guys who were good college football players, but not good enough for the NFL.
I don’t think you quite understand the level of athleticism required to play in the NFL – they’re absolute freaks of nature. They’d make Jonah Lomu’s combination of size, strength and speed look average.
im currently playing American Football over here. and i no its not going to be anywhere near the nfl standard… but i get the idea.
it took him 4 years. but it wasnt a professional sport back then. it is now, the game is COMPLETLY different. i dont think it would happen now.